Mixed‐integer quadratic programming approach for noninvasive estimation of respiratory effort profile during pressure support ventilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information about respiratory mechanics such as resistance, elastance, and muscular pressure is important to mitigate ventilator-induced lung injury. Particularly during pressure support ventilation, the available options to quantify breathing effort and calculate respiratory system mechanics are often invasive or complex. We herein propose a robust and flexible estimation of respiratory effort better than current methods. We developed a method for non-invasively estimating breathing effort using only flow and pressure signals. Mixed-integer quadratic programming (MIQP) was employed, and the binary variables were the switching moments of the respiratory effort waveform. Mathematical constraints, based on ventilation physiology, were set for some variables to restrict feasible solutions. Simulated and patient data were used to verify our method, and the results were compared to an established estimation methodology. Our algorithm successfully estimated the respiratory effort, resistance, and elastance of the respiratory system, resulting in more robust performance and faster solver times than a previously proposed algorithm that used quadratic programming (QP) techniques. In a numerical simulation benchmark, the worst-case errors for resistance and elastance were 25% and 23% for QP versus <0.1% and <0.1% for MIQP, whose solver times were 4.7 s and 0.5 s, respectively. This approach can estimate several breathing effort profiles and identify the respiratory system's mechanical properties in invasively ventilated critically ill patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".